skip to main content
10.1145/3491140.3528319acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesl-at-sConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Collaboration at Scale: Exploring Member Role Changing Patterns in Collaborative Science Problem-solving Tasks

Published:01 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Our work-in-progress paper explores students' role-changing patterns while working on science tasks in small groups. Grounded on the Collaboration Conceptual Model, we examined how members in 15 middle school student groups changed their roles throughout the entire collaborative activities. We annotated students' role changes at a one-minute segment, as well as the overall group collaboration quality at the individual task level for each student group. Our analytical approach involved hierarchical cluster analysis and non-parametric statistical tests to identify the relationships between students' role-changing patterns and collaboration outcomes. Preliminary results identified two distinct group types that showed different patterns of role changes and manifested different group collaboration qualities and performances. We discuss how this work is of interest to the Learning@Scale community in promoting effective collaboration at scale in authentic classroom settings.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

L-at-S22-lswp178.mp4

mp4

76 MB

References

  1. Nonye Alozie and Svati Dhamija. 2020. Automated collaboration assessment using behavioral analytics. International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2 (2020), 1071--1078.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Khaled Bachour, Frederic Kaplan, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2010. An interactive table for supporting participation balance in face-to-face collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 3, 3 (2010), 203--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Fatemeh Bambaeeroo and Nasrin Shokrpour. 2017. The impact of the teachers' non-verbal communication on success in teaching. Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism 5, 2 (2017), 51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sadjia Bekal, Roland Brousseau, Luke Masson, Gabrielle Prefontaine, John Fairbrother, and Josée Harel. 2003. Rapid identification of Escherichia coli pathotypes by virulence gene detection with DNA microarrays. Journal of clinical microbiology 41, 5 (2003), 2113--2125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Marilyn Binkley, Ola Erstad, Joan Herman, Senta Raizen, Martin Ripley, May Miller-Ricci, and Mike Rumble. 2012. Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer, Dordrecht,Netherlands, 17--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Rebeca Cerezo, Miguel Sánchez-Santillán, M Puerto Paule-Ruiz, and J Carlos Núñez. 2016. Students' LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education 96 (2016), 42--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Pierre Dillenbourg, David Traum, and Daniel Schneider. 1996. Grounding in multimodal task-oriented collaboration. In Proceedings of the European Conference on AI in Education. European Conference on AI in Education, NA, 401--407.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, and Zoë Field. 2012. Discovering statistics using R. Sage publications, London, England.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Alexis Gabadinho, Gilbert Ritschard, Nicolas Séverin Mueller, and Matthias Studer. 2011. Analyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with TraMineR. Journal of statistical software 40, 4 (2011), 1--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kurt F Geisinger. 2016. 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education 29, 4 (2016), 245--249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nuria Hernández-Sellés, Pablo-César Muñoz-Carril, and Mercedes González- Sanmamed. 2019. Computer-supported collaborative learning: An analysis of the relationship between interaction, emotional support and online collaborative tools. Computers & Education 138 (2019), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Shiyan Jiang, Cansu Tatar, Xudong Huang, Shannon H. Sung, and Charles Xie. 0. Augmented Reality in Science Laboratories: Investigating High School Students' Navigation Patterns and Their Effects on Learning Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research 0, 0 (0), 07356331211038764. https://doi.org/10. 1177/07356331211038764 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211038764Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Roger T Johnson and David W Johnson. 2008. Active learning: Cooperation in the classroom. The annual report of educational psychology in Japan 47 (2008), 29--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gloria Ashiya Katuka, Richard T Bex, Mehmet Celepkolu, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Eric Wiebe, Bradford Mott, and James Lester. 2021. My Partner was a Good Partner: Investigating the Relationship between Dialogue Acts and Satisfaction among Middle School Computer Science Learners. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning-CSCL 2021. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Virtual, 51--58. https: //www.intellimedia.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Katuka_ISLS_2021.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Marjan Laal, Mozhgan Laal, and Zhina Khattami Kermanshahi. 2012. 21st century learning; learning in collaboration. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012), 1696--1701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Emily R Lai. 2011. Collaboration: A literature review. Pearson Publisher. Retrieved November 11 (2011), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Pauline Leonard and Lawrence Leonard. 2001. Assessing aspects of professional collaboration in schools: Beliefs versus practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 47, 1 (2001), 4--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Chin-Wen Liao, Ching-Huei Chen, and Sie-Jhih Shih. 2019. The interactivity of video and collaboration for learning achievement, intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and behavior patterns in a digital game-based learning environment. Computers & Education 133 (2019), 43--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Robert J Mislevy, Russell G Almond, and Janice F Lukas. 2003. A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. ETS Research Report Series 2003, 1 (2003), i--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hana Vrzakova, Mary Jean Amon, Angela Stewart, Nicholas D Duran, and Sidney K D'Mello. 2020. Focused or stuck together: multimodal patterns reveal triads' performance in collaborative problem solving. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge. Association for Computing Machinery, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3375462.3375467, 295--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Noreen M Webb. 1995. Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17, 2 (1995), 239--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Collaboration at Scale: Exploring Member Role Changing Patterns in Collaborative Science Problem-solving Tasks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      L@S '22: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
      June 2022
      491 pages
      ISBN:9781450391580
      DOI:10.1145/3491140

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 June 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate117of440submissions,27%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)29
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader